Transcript CNN "Late Edition"

Joining us now, from Philadelphia, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, and in New York, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. As the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, he's getting a lot of credit for the Democrats winning control of the U.S. Senate.

Senators, welcome back to "Late Edition." And Senator Schumer, I'll start with you. First of all, congratulations. I'm not even sure you were convinced the Democrats would get those six seats you needed to become the majority. But you did it.

BLITZER: And just for the record, Senator Schumer, are you planning on doing this again, looking ahead to the Senate in 2008, running that Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee?

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Well, Senator Reid has asked me. I'm thinking about it long and hard. And I'll give Senator Reid an answer tomorrow or the next day.

BLITZER: Let's talk about Iraq right now.

Senator Schumer, you heard Josh Bolten, the White House chief of staff, say that they're open to new ideas, although he's lukewarm at best to any fixed timetable the Democrats might have in mind.

He is open to a regional conference, including Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, a dialogue with them, potentially, even. What do you make of this?

SCHUMER: Well, I think it's all to the good, Wolf. You know, one thing is clear. The present strategy in Iraq is not working, and there needs to be a change in course. Many of us took the fact that Secretary Rumsfeld is no longer defense secretary as a first step, a signal that they were open to new ideas. And we'd like very much to work with the president and try to get some kind of change of course in Iraq.

BLITZER: What kind of timetable, Senator Schumer, would you like to see implemented, to get U.S. troops out of Iraq?

SCHUMER: Well, basically, I've been supportive of, basically, the consensus Democratic plan. We call it the Levin-Reed Resolution. It was voted on. I think 39 of the 45 Democrats supported it.

And it basically says, let us stop patrolling a civil war. What's happened is something we all never bargained for, that we seem to just be policing the war between the Shiites and the Sunnis.

Instead, let's make 2007 a year of transition, where we redeploy a large number of our troops out of harm's way. Some would remain in Iraq. Some would be outside of Iraq.

And the troops should focus on four goals, not policing a civil war, but rather counterterrorism, force protection, logistics and training.

As we do that, we should also let the Iraqis know that we're not going to stay there forever and they better get their act together because the United States presence isn't a forever proposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: What do you think, Senator Schumer?

SCHUMER: I agree it's a good idea. You don't have to like people, agree with them or give in to them to talk to them.

And what we've learned, throughout the world, Wolf, is no matter how strong we are militarily, we can't do this on our own.

Look at what's happening in both Iran, with their process for nuclear weapons, with North Korea.

We depend on other countries, some of whom are not our allies. But in this war on terror, where small groups of bad people can hurt us, a more multilateral approach is important in the Middle East and elsewhere.

BLITZER: Let me read to you from the editorial in "The Economist," Senator Schumer: "Anyone expecting an immediate American withdrawal will be disappointed. Mr. Bush, so he says, is 'committed to victory.' Unless they are planning to cut off funding to our troops in the field, an unthinkable option so close to the next presidential election, the Democrats can do nothing about it."

Is that true?

SCHUMER: No, that's not true at all. As Arlen knows, you know, when you're in the majority and the president is of the other party, there are many ways that you can exert persuasion, exert pressure, et cetera -- obviously, holding hearings.

Now, we're not going to hold a whole raft of hearings pointing the finger back at what happened in 2001. We've had enough commissions on that.

But for instance, I'd like to know why the top generals feel Iraqization isn't working. This is the ninth new plan we've had on Iraqization. A hearing on that would be worthwhile and productive in pointing to the future.

There are other things you can do as well. The Economist is right in that just a dramatic cut-off and saying "no funds for Iraq" isn't going to happen. It would be unfair to our troops.

But there are many ways that a Congress can exert pressure short of that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: And he might be right, Senator Schumer, because in Virginia and Montana, only a few thousand votes made the difference. And presumably, if the president, a few weeks earlier, would have signaled a major change in Iraq strategy by getting rid of Rumsfeld, that might have made a difference.

SCHUMER: Well, you never know. It's very possible it would have, but it's also possible it wouldn't have. The president's base might have become disillusioned and more of them would have stayed home.

The people are really asking for a change in Iraq, not just a change in tactics but a change in strategy. And I think they were looking for that change. I think, just to say Rumsfeld's leaving without enunciating a change in strategy would have had less of an effect than most people think.

BLITZER: Will you plan, Senator Schumer, on confirming Robert Gates to be the next defense secretary? SCHUMER: Well, I think the inclination of Democrats is to give the president latitude on an executive appointment, particularly one that involves defense or foreign policy.

But there will be questions asked. The number one question I have of Mr. Gates is, is he going to really entertain different points of view?

When you talk to the generals, even those who are on duty now, it was known that Secretary Rumsfeld never wanted to hear a point of view that was different than his own. He was not likely to want to entertain facts on the ground that didn't square with his own little narrow viewpoint. And I think that's one of the reasons we had trouble. As Arlen said, the buck stops with the president. But if his top adviser in charge isn't listening to other points of view, it's trouble.

Will Gates be a man who is more open, whatever his own views are, to entertaining other points of view, given that our policy in Iraq is not doing well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Hold on, don't answer that, Senator Schumer. Don't answer that question. We're going to pick up on John Bolton when we come back. We're going to take a quick break. Lots more with Senator Schumer, Senator Specter. We'll also talk about the new incoming Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill. Will it really be ready to work with President Bush now that there's been this enormous power shift here in Washington?

"Late Edition" continues right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BLITZER: Welcome back to "Late Edition." We're continuing our conversation with the Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. We were talking, Senator Schumer, about John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. His recess appointment is about to end in January. The president signaling he's going to resubmit his nomination to the Senate in the coming days. Are you ready to confirm him now?

SCHUMER: No, I'm not. And let me just say, first of all, in this Congress it's still a 55-45 Congress -- Senate. The president hasn't been able to get the votes. Early on, George Voinovich opposed him. Now Voinovich has changed his mind. Senator Hagel expressed some doubts, also a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I don't know if he still has the doubts.

But Senator Chafee has said he's voting against him. So I think it's kind of moot until the president can get his own ducks in order. But as for Bolton himself, I mean, for me, he's something of a mixed bag.

On the one hand, I fully support his full support of Israel. I think he understands that there are lots of people in the Middle East, including Hamas, that believes Israel has no right to exist, and you can't talk with anyone if they don't believe you have a right to exist.

On the other hand, Bolton's philosophy has been very unilateral. The U.S. can do it all. To heck with the rest of the world, to heck the rest of the nations. And in this new world, where we have to fight a war on terrorism, a global war on terrorism, we can't fight it alone.

BLITZER: Well, let me press you, Senator Schumer, on that. Don't you think in the past year, while he's been at the United Nations, he has tried to reach out, and Senator Specter did point out he did get a 15 to nothing vote on sanctions through the United Nations Security Council.

SCHUMER: He did get a 15-nothing vote, but it was a very weak resolution. Maybe with somebody who had more trust among the other players in the U.N. that we would have gotten a stronger resolution.

And there's still, from what I am told and certainly some of our experts, Senator Biden and others, Senator Dodd, that there's lots of bad blood between Bolton and others. And you don't need that when you're trying to build a world consensus on Iraq, on Iran, on North Korea.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: And in the new issue of Time magazine, Senator Schumer, Karl Rove, the president's top political strategist, says this, and I'll read it to you: "The profile of corruption in the exit polls was bigger than I'd expected. Abramoff, lobbying, Foley, Haggard" -- the disgraced evangelical leader -- "added to the general distaste that people have for all things Washington, and it just reached critical mass."

Is that part of your assessment as well?

SCHUMER: Well, it's part of the assessment, but let's not forget all of the things Arlen mentioned the president strongly opposed. He has strongly opposed habeas, he's strongly opposed stem-cell research, he's strongly opposed many of these other things. It's not just the fights among Republicans. The president proved to be out of touch.

Now, if this election is a wake-up call to him, and he decides to move more to the center and work in a bipartisan way with Democrats, I know that Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic rank and file, we're eager to work with the president and try to get things done. Everyone, not just the people outside Washington, but I think even those of us within the Beltway, are tired of the partisanship, and we can work together.

In the past, the president has not reached out much to Democrats except on a few isolated issues. Arlen Specter has always reached out to us, but the president usually didn't follow. If he changes, we could really get some things done, and he could retrieve his presidency.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: All right, we unfortunately have to leave it right there. Senator Specter, thanks very much. Senator Schumer...

BLITZER: ... once again, congratulations to you. Clearly you did a pretty good job for your fellow Democrats.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/12/le.01.html